Search

The survivor of sexual violence in the federal workplace faces peculiar obstacles to remedial justice in court. When any plaintiff brings a tort claim against the United States for intentional harm by a federal employee, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") expressly excludes liability for "[a]ny claim arising out of assault [or] battery."1 That exception, however, is itself subject to exception and is of doubtful continuing legitimacy. For example, the United States remains liable under some circumstances for negligent failure to prevent an assault or battery. As another example, the FTCA expressly permits claims for assault or battery committed by a federal law enforcement officer. Moreover, the assault-and-battery exception has been partially and now should be wholly repealed. But even if the exception can be avoided for others, the federal employee still is left without tort relief. First, most federal courts have held that employment discrimination statutes provide the exclusive remedy for sexual misconduct occurring in the workplace, despite the absence of any support for that result in the text of the statutes. Second, the United States insists that the federal workers' compensation statute is the exclusive remedy, even for workplace injuries imposed by intentional coworker misconduct. Third, the young women and men of the armed services who survive sexual assault are locked out of the courthouse by the judicially implied Feres doctrine, which holds that a service member injured incident to service is barred from bringing an action against the United States under the FTCA. While those who work for the federal government, like any private sector worker, are at risk for an accidental injury on the job, the employee who is sexually attacked by a coworker should not be treated as the incidental victim of a work-related injury and subjected to routine compensation benefits that are not designed for the unique harm caused by sexual violence. To hold the federal government fully accountable for sexual assault, Congress should ensure that federal employees--both civilian and military--when sexually assaulted by a federal employee may seek appropriate judicial relief in the form of damages under the traditional law of torts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The warp and woof of U.S. law are threaded by the appellate courts, generating precedents on constitutional provisions, statutory texts, and common-law doctrines. Although the product of the appellate courts is regularly the subject of empirical study, less attention has been given to the sources and methods of appellate advocacy. Given the paramount place of written briefs in the appellate process, we should examine seriously the frequent complaint by appellate judges that briefs are too long and that prolixity weakens persuasive power. In a study of civil appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we discover that, for appellants, briefs of greater length are strongly correlated with success on appeal. For the party challenging an adverse decision below, persuasive completeness may be more important than condensed succinctness. The underlying cause of both greater appellant success and accompanying longer briefs may lie in the typically complex nature of the reversible civil appeal. In light of our findings, the current proposal to reduce the limits on number of words in federal appellate briefs may cut more sharply against appellants. Experienced appellate advocates submit that familiarity with appellate courts, the honed ability to craft the right arguments with the appropriate style in briefing, and expertise in navigating the appellate system provide superior legal representation to clients. Our study lends support to this claim. We found a positive correlation between success and experience for lawyers representing appellees, thus warranting further study of lawyer specialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and forum shopping in money claims against the U.S. federal government. It analyzes breach of trust claims against the U.S. government reported by Native American Indian tribes, which is due to the conflict between the Court of Federal Claims under the U.S. Tucker Act and the District Court under the Administrative Procedure Act. It also presents information on the U.S. District Court case Cobell v. Babbit.

Focuses on the result of the empirical research on the factors that influenced the judicial decision-making and the appointment of federal judges in the U.S. Summary of opposing arguments concerning the effects of empirical research on public policy or the substance of the academic debate; Political implications of ideology on controversial court cases; Requirements for nominating a judge.